Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)
what the use is financial services. >> thank you. >> sorry, i forgot, it has been a wild to ask if you will accept these? and unfortunately... we did not make all of the copies. >> has the appellant seen this? >> no, we just got these today. i have not shown them to him. >> we do have a copy. sorry. >> did you hand in a copy? >> we just came... yeah. >> we just received these today. >> you just received the documents on the secretary of state. >> unfortunately we just ordered them this afternoon. they did not come from the secretary of state it came from their website. >> okay >> could you tell me what is on them, again? >> could you tell me what is represented in the documents? >> sure. there is a website of the secretary of state, which is called business entity details and the entity name is vocal point network, llc, it is active in california, it is address is in oakland. the principal is alfred chan who is indeed with who my client has interacted. and that is one piece of paper. the other is an irs statement, it is a letter to vocal point financial network. in care of mr. alfred c
that is in question and the changing of the use to vocal point. and while it seems that most of the attention to this property came about because of the conditional use application that they have on file for a wireless facility, what is going on here and the activity is not related to the wireless facility that they have an application in for but in relation for the change of use for this business and professional service use. the definition, well back up a little bit. so the terevel cd which was created last year does tend to add a little bit of confusion. the business and professional businesses listed adds the principally permitted use. however when you look at the street frontage controls it cross-references section 145.4 which is 145.4 c, which lists the active commercial uses and it says that if it is not on that list, then it needs a conditional use authorization and then the planning commission heard this legislation in june of last year and it was very clear to them what the supervisor's intent was on this legislation and so i have highlighted on the overhead is a passage that all of
working with her office to determine whether or not this proposed new use, the vocal point insurance agency would be in compliance with the new neighborhood commercial district. and after communicating with them and meeting with them, i was not in on those meetings for the most part of those communications, but it was from the office and her assistant, that this is not the type of use that could be put into this space in the neighborhood district without a conditional use application and approval. it is not what is considered an active use under the new neighborhood commercial district rules and the purpose of the new neighborhood commercial districts and there were four of them found it out in the sunset was to create active storefronts with people coming in and out and the foot traffic that would in turn lead to more business for the surroundings area. and so, the supervisor office actually made to the planning department about the new use when we finally learned what it was. because that complaint went to the planning department to the supervisor office and my understanding as of
is for the costa country club's outdoor activity and the second is reserved for the use of open space for the current residential unit on the 3rd floor. the difference would be the current proposal, the area would be separated by an hvac installation instead of the previous fixed planters. the project requires the planning commission a restaurant on the ground floor pursuant to planning code section 715.44. the second action is for the legalization of a change of occupancy of a residential use to a non-residential use to the castro country club. pursuant to -- i'm sorry -- the country club with the second floor outdoor activity area. and that basically the department would still maintain the original recommendation for approval. this is for a recommendation for approval for the proposed restaurant on the ground floor. it is not a formula retail use, but rather an independent, locally-owned business. it is designed to serve residents from the neighborhood, and patrons of other businesses on castro or 18th street and it's not a destination restaurant. no. 3, it contributes to the ec
determined that this use won't even be allowed when the new land use changes come in and perhaps they are going to change that you know just to stick it to these live, work residents that seems incredibly unfair to me. these folks really will have no choice but to try to delay the permit in order to reach that new zoning. if all benefits are going to be denied them of any kind, under the policies which are already in place, remember this special use district has been in place for a long, like five or six years now. and this has been this delay in implementation of the policies and the design guidelines around that. if all of that is going to be denied to these folks, you know, really we will have no choice but, you know, to try to get relief. and you know, for anyone to say that we are exaggerating the impacts. we have not made any outrageous claims about the impacts. but ask yourself, what kind of an impact is that? a 12 and a half foot wall flush against your deck and that is what they came up with. here is what the planning commission gave them. i mean, it is absurd. >> you do
of an agreement and using that space without putting a fence in the middle. but we have not heard back from them and so, at this point, i ask that you deny the current permit. and i am not actually sure that any of the plans that we were talking about today that i have received, all that is before, or that was given to the administrator, was actually filed as a revision to the building department. so that it is really nothing before this board. and i think that the clean way to do it is to deny the permit. have them submit a complete set of consolidated permits, and would be happy to work with the projects sponsor to move the thing along. but, they cannot jaming us with short deadlines and saying, no we are not going to give you another week just to really sit down and sort all out of the issue all at once. >> counselor, the survey was only a boundary survey. >> it was only a boundary survey because they also did not show, normally you show the height of the roof, elevation, and that is not there. so, for us to try to figure out the non-conformity and what has to be done is difficult. because th
and they are all alike. we went through a series of permits, to get us here, and that have problems, and all that we are asking for is that you deny this permit so that they can come up with one set of permits so that it actually can be done. and i have to also emphasize that there is an area on the landing of the staircase, the front steps going up that encroach on to my client's property and so that has to be addressed also before that permit can be issued. >> mr. soriano? >> i promise not to take all of the rebuttal time because i am not fearing anything new. it is nothing that deal with the specific permit. i do want to answer a question that mr. fung had about why are we not moving forward if there were exceptions for us to go ahead and do that. the reason is that the existing permit that is being held up by this appeal, it requires replacement of the stucco work and so we need to be able to address the stucco work before the installation of the windows while we appreciate the exception that was made it has not allowed the work to proceed. it is causing the work stand still and financia
jurisdictions that we work with have zone limitations that affect the kind of size we use and illumination levels. we develop very specific signage packages and [speaker not understood] per the permit. they go beyond the exterior method signs we have on the building, but also talk about internal, not atm machines are included in the signage packages. the information is there for review. i'm saddened a little bit to hear such an objection to our sign quality. it is our intention to work with the community to produce signage packages. and esthetics for the bank itself, which blend in and are nice in the neighborhood. we provide a service and we want our banks to be appreciated in the community. >> commissioner antonini. >> yeah, i think zoning administrator sanchez made a good point, and that is that to restrict lighting entirely or to try to prohibit it goes against what we're trying to accomplish. a well lit building, tastefully lit, provides security in the area. there's less apt to be crime or homeless encamp there or something if a building provides good illumination. you may think the
jurisdiction request, but hold on the -- continue the appeals that are actually properly before us today? >> we prepared to move forward with the jurisdictional request and then address the continuous with the administrator also. >> okay. let's go forward. >> that's fine. >> we can hear the jurisdictional request and depending what the outcome of that perhaps the board wants to entertain the other question. >> i apologize for not having a brief prepared for the board. the brief that was submitted by the previous counsel is a little sketchy and for the reason we were never able to accept the plans submitted to the department that was the basis of those permits. let me get over the first one which is the removal of the sheet rock or plaster inside the house. basically the second permit that's issued was one that was issued in error by the planning department because the way the plan they was finally able to see yesterday at the planning department because the permit didn't provide us with plans so we can look at it. they were going to give the approved set of plans to look at on t
is submitted. >> do you have questions for them? >> i guess that it is me. >> the whole matter, before us is extremely disturbing, to say the least. i think that as one gentleman mentioned this board gave them the free pass. to say the least, and from that point on, the permit holder has decided to basically cowboy through every law that we have in the city to going through the dbi putting public safety at risk, public health. i feel and this is a very difficult case, the result of having a rehearing, what will that do? i feel that something needs to be done. i mean the people in this neighborhood, at this point have not been afforded any protection. and every time that this permit has been told to do something he has down the other. the fact that the san francisco police department had to be called in just to access the building, is absurd to stop him and threatening him bodily harm enough that he felt that he had to have the san francisco police department show up. to me, shows that this permit holder has basically decided that he is going to make the rules no matter what it is before h
station when the building matter involves demolition, modification or change in use, public, safety, traffic, sidewalk and environmental issues, may be better evaluated when notefy is made and permits are issues. thank you for your assistance and if you don't mind, if i could give this to the president of the commission and if you would like a copy, i have copies for you. >> sure. >> thank you, next speaker. >> thank you. thank you, victor. >> thanks. >> my name is michael hammond and i am here on behalf of the neighborhood association. you have heard tonight, testimony about the outrageous actions of this individual, after you upheld his permit and you placed stimulations on it. he has violated every sing of one of those. and in direct violation of a promise that he made that night. he went out and he hired uncertified workers to use a hydroblaster to blast lead chips all over the neighborhood with no attempt of containment this is in violation of state and federal law. in addition, he had an excavator and dug up and removed and hauled away a great deal of dirt before it was tested
the number of issues that is before us, and therefore be able to not only take care of -- any substantive concerns in agreement with the appellant but allow the permit holder to correct any of the procedural issues that have been brought up-to-date. >> i view this -- the issue here -- i mean what has been presented and the testimony we received and particularly from planning is very troubling to me and seems to me this is exactly called out as the jurisdiction requester has call it out, the serial permitting problem, and i think that -- i think it's a catch me if you can situation, and oh you solve that problem. we will take a slerch hammer to it. gone like it wasn't an issue. these are sophisticated people and this is a problem. if you're so sophisticated and finding loopholes around the way everyone else is required to do it is deeply problematic to me and i am inclined to grant the request. if a continuous is preferred on the part of all parties i would go that route but i think everyone needs to delve in and if there is an environmental review that will happen anyway and i want gla
, i am using the sand bar map to indicate where the decks are in relation to the current to the owner's property. >> a clear indication of the size of that deck and it does extend into the rear yard as does the property extends into the rear yard. it is not only a fire escape as you look here, this extends back and there is a deck on top. the large portion of this extends the rear yard. and i stated that. that this does not extend into the rear yard i am just pointing out that it is an adjacent neighbor that has direct access to the private open space. in my estimation it is in the rear yard and it is relatively in the rear yard, that is the common to all areas, all of the structures because it is 20 and a half feet of a blank wall. as far as the directions, here is the occasional of how much shadow is being cast? >> i am sorry. >> okay. >> okay. so this is a diagram of the proposed deck. and you can see this on the shadow that is being cast on my clients' property and so as far as the mislabeling of the directions, i mean i was aware of that early on and i did not address it, i did n
Search Results 0 to 14 of about 15 (some duplicates have been removed)